People don’t recycle things that look like trash

A tendency to categorize gets in the way of reducing waste.

Given a world with finite resources, some level of recycling is essential. But, even for resources that aren't especially limited—like paper—recycling can save energy and avoid the environmental disruption that comes from harvesting trees. Despite all the benefits of recycling, however, many of us do it only erratically.

A new study published in the Journal of Consumer Research attempts to explain why our recycling habit isn't as ingrained as we might like it to be. In it, two researchers (Remi Trudel and Jennifer Argo) show that our sense of an object's utility, as well as our penchant for categorizing something as trash, both feed in to whether people are likely to try to recycle it.

The research project started with the team rooting through the rubbish and recycling bins in one of their university's office buildings. During their after-hours trips through the trash, they noticed a rather distinctive pattern: sheets of paper that were close to the standard 8.5 x 11 inch size (this is the US, no A4 paper here) were more likely to be recycled, while smaller sheets tended to be thrown into the trash. This trend held even when the researchers adjusted for the total volume of paper in the different size categories.

The behavior of their co-workers led them to formulate a hypothesis: If a sheet of paper is close to the normal size we use every day, then people will mentally categorize it as still useful and will be more likely to recycle it. If, in contrast, it's a smaller size, then we'll view it as damaged and less useful. As a result, we'll tend to throw it in the trash.

To test this hypothesis, they came up with a series of experiments that were all based on a misdirection: they convinced their test subjects that they were there to evaluate a pair of scissors. During the tests, the subjects were asked to cut various sized sheets of paper into smaller portions (in half, into quarters, etc.), which produced sheets that had varying degrees of similarity to standard 8.5 x 11 sheets. Then, when the tests were over, the subjects were asked to dispose of the paper on their way out, where trash and recycling bins were waiting. (One research hazard: a fair number of the subjects took the paper with them, presumably to use for themselves. Those results were excluded from the analysis.)

The subjects consistently recycled paper if it ended up close to the standard paper size. To give one example: students given a standard sheet of paper or a double-size one, when asked to discard it, recycled the paper 80 percent of the time. If they cut the double-sized one in half, they ended up with a standard-sized paper, which they also recycled at an 80 percent rate. But, if they cut the standard sized one in half, resulting in two pieces of small paper, the recycling rate dropped in half.

Recycling rates for small pieces of paper went back up significantly if the authors asked the students to name five things the small sheets could be used for, suggesting that standard sized paper was simply viewed as useful, and therefore worth preserving (even if, in reality, recycling doesn't preserve the paper's shape in any way).

The researchers saw something similar with soda cans, as well. Regular cans were recycled more than 80 percent of the time, but if researchers gave participants a half-sized can, the recycling rate dropped to less than half—even though that's the normal state for that particular can. Put a dent in the can and, regardless of its size, the recycling rate dropped to somewhere in the area of 20 percent.

The authors conclude that there are multiple, overlapping processes of categorization going on. If we see an object as damaged—a dented can or small fragment of paper—we're more likely to categorize it as trash and treat it accordingly. In a similar manner, the more we see something as preserving its normal state, such as a full-sized soda can or standard-sized sheet of paper, we're more likely to consider it useful and worth of preserving through recycling.

The authors suggest that this behavior needs to be kept in mind if we want to increase recycling rates; things like packaging and food containers may typically be viewed as trash once they're emptied and are therefore less likely to be recycled. One alternative, however, is that human categorizations might ultimately adapt to the new reality of recycling and add a third category aside from useful and trash: recyclable.

I'm curious as to how we change this paradigm. Further education on the topic doesn't seem like it would work necessarily, so possibly better package design would help? Or something else entirely?

I think packaging would go a long way to remind that the item in your hand is easily recyclable. Having a tiny symbol with a number that no one knows what it means is not helping other than the people already doing it.

Maybe on the top of your cereal box put a "recycle this" message there?

Personally I've found that the smaller the bit of paper the more likely it is to shuffle itself out of the recycling container and blow away onto the yard/street etc.

I also don't put smaller pieces of paper in the recycling as I've found it's much more likely to result in post-garbage-day cleanup, but in that case I'm putting the smaller pieces of paper in the compost rather than the trash, so I don't think I'm doing any worse.

I'd attribute the reluctance to recycle odd pieces of paper and the like to restrictions on what recyclers will take at the typical recycling center or municipal collection.

"We take boxboard and cardboard but not if it has any plastic on it or if it's glossy or waxed and don't mix it up with the paper. Corrugated cardboard goes in Bin A and regular cardboard goes in bin B. The paper should be white office paper or newspaper but not glossy paper and if it's colored paper it needs to go in a separate bin. Paper bags are ok but only if they're brown paper bags and no tape or staples allowed. Manilla folders go in with the colored paper unless they're extra heavy in which case they go in with boxboard."

After a while you just give up and only put the kind of paper you know for sure is approved.

I still remember life before recycle bins in every house. My biggest reason for recycling now is that if I threw everything in the garbage dumpster, I'd run out of room before garbage day. If I remember correctly, when we first got the bins in the early 90's, they were very picky about what they would take, how it was seperated and how clean it was. I remember a few times the recycle truck would leave an entire bin behind with a note telling us to rinse out the milk gallon better. It was a tough sell to get people to wash their garbage. My parents basically stopped recycling at that point and it never became ingrained in me. My kids are better at it now than I ever was. Maybe it's a generational thing.

As for why people don't recycle smaller bits of paper and cans, maybe it's an unconscious correlation between recycle and reuse.

I wonder how much of this behavior is natural, and how much of it is the result of years of training us to carefully sort our recyclables into the appropriate bins.

Where I work, we have a fairly aggressive recycling program. There are five different classes of material we collect, in addition to the regular Trash. Most people are cool with it, but a number have adopted one of two strategies:

1. Throw everything in the foodwaste bin and let "them" sort it out.2. Throw everything in the Trash

I try to recycle everything possible. It used to be much harder when my town did it's own pickups, because they had so many damn rules. You needed like 6 bins to do it right, things had to be tied up, broken down, sorted, seperated. They had all these exclusions (this cardboard yes, 12 pack soda cardboard no). It made it really difficult to the point where if you weren't positive it was supposed to go in bin 4, you were better off putting it in the garbage.

Now they have outsourced recycle collection, like lots of towns are doing, and the new company wants everything together. No sorting or having to tie up newspapers. Just put it all in 1 bin, at the curb. They have smart soft facilities now.

I think an important thing to make it even easier is that companies need to display the recycle codes on their packaging better. Too much stuff I have to scour the packaing to find the recycle symbol. Or all it will say is "made with 100% recycled paper". Great, but does that mean I can recycle it again? or no? I don't know because thats all the package says about recycling, so I assume it can' t be.

I wonder how much of this behavior is natural, and how much of it is the result of years of training us to carefully sort our recyclables into the appropriate bins.

Where I work, we have a fairly aggressive recycling program. There are five different classes of material we collect, in addition to the regular Trash. Most people are cool with it, but a number have adopted one of two strategies:

1. Throw everything in the foodwaste bin and let "them" sort it out.2. Throw everything in the Trash

I'm curious as to how we change this paradigm. Further education on the topic doesn't seem like it would work necessarily, so possibly better package design would help? Or something else entirely?

Public flogging or caning should do the trick.

A better alternative would be aggregate garbage collection posts which are monitored and people are charged by the pound for the amount they throw away while they can recycle accepted materials at monitored collection posts for free.

The problem right now is aside from scrappers that are attempting to gain money from collecting recyclables there is no monetary incentive for people to do the right thing.

Of course the monitoring of what gets put in which garbage collection facility is going to be key because if people can get away with throwing garbage into a recycling bin to shirk their responsibility you can be sure they will.

In my building, there are trash rooms in each hallway but only one side of the building has the recycle bins and they are small. Plus recycle bins themselves are stupid. I'd rather just have a blue trash can next to my regular can and bag my mixed recyclables.

Better to spend more on sorting and make trash/recycling management more expensive than to continue to expect that individual users will expend time and effort doing for free what could be be someone's paid work or some big capital expenditures on sorting machines.

It should be more like the postal system. They have just a few kinds of limits on what can be shipped through USPS and they have machines that sort the bulk of it automatically. They constantly seek new machines to do as much by machine as possible.

I recycle cans, because I get taxed when I buy them and I want my money back, but my town has no recycle policy and as such I would have to drive several miles to recycle. I throw things away because its the cheap efficient thing to do. Recycling does become expensive just in sorting contamients from recyclable things. Sometimes I wonder if it isnt cheaper to plant a tree.

I wonder how much of this behavior is natural, and how much of it is the result of years of training us to carefully sort our recyclables into the appropriate bins.

Where I work, we have a fairly aggressive recycling program. There are five different classes of material we collect, in addition to the regular Trash.

I lived in two different apartments buildings that had separated recycling bins. In the first, the bins were there but no one seemed to care very much about them, so I properly separated recyclables as I had time. If I was in a hurry, it all went into the trash.

In the second, my attitude quickly changed because the hausmeister caught me throwing everything into the trash and said he'd fine me if I did it again. After that I noticed that he spent time every day going through all of the trash and recycling bins.

The "useful" theory (or at least Ars' summary of it) doesn't seem like a good explanation for the reduced recycling of 1/2 size soda cans. I wonder if the study's authors compared their theory against an alternate hypothesis something along the lines of:

People don't usually employ general reasoning when they recycle, they follow pre-established patterns. Any object that they haven't previously recycled will not be recycled unless the participants are slapped upside the head and told, "Listen, dumbass, LOOK at thing your hand. Turn on your brain. Can you recycle it?"

Assuming this does not exist, the recycling industry should work with consumer product, especially grocery items, to make a packaging database based on upc codes so that they can make sorting machines that scan all the upc codes or rfid and sort them to the correct recyling category.

I really think this is due to the restrictions recyclers place on the recyclables they take. There are always very strict guidelines about what color and gloss paper may be, and how corrugated and uncorrugated cardboard must be treated (again, with color and gloss sometimes factoring in). Then we get to plastics, where some municipalities only take #1, #2, #3, etc, or an arbitrary combination of them all.

Add in all the restrictions and limitations and it's little wonder that we don't see something as fit for recycling unless it looks "perfect" to our eyes. True, we might have a bit of Skinner's pigeons in us when it comes to recycling, but though understandable there are certainly a lot of restrictions as to what qualifies as recyclable.

One research hazard: a fair number of the subjects took the paper with them, presumably to use for themselves. Those results were excluded from the analysis

Isn't this the ultimate form of recycling?

Yes, because you are finding a use for the material's before they are processed. I save a lot of plastic wrapping for packing items I sell online. Ideally, the person receiving those items would recycle the packing material when they receive the item.Unfortunately the researchers didn't measure what the people did with the paper they kept. They could have just crammed it in their pockets and threw it in the trash at home.

My apartment doesn't have recycling so the fiancée and I have to drag it to the local recycling center. We do two bins glass/cans and other stuff. Making the trip out to do it isn't so bad, but once we get there I dread it because I never feel like I'm doing it right, rules regarding the opening of the container versus the size of its base, then "misc paper" versus 'office paper" it starts to get pretty weird.

On the other hand, on campus the recycle bins are all single stream and you can throw anything in it that isn't obviously garbage. Recycling back in Washington was similar and much easier to do.

I've got the opposite problem - I'm being told to throw away what looks to me like something that can be recycled. I used to rinse out cans and put the lids inside, then recycle them together. Then I was told by the County that they don't accept lids and I should stop doing that. So now I throw away the lids, which I'm guessing is about 10% of the can.

If recycling were worth the trouble recycling companies would pay you.

They used to pay for aluminum. Then recycling became mandatory and it turns out the profit from the aluminum doesn't offset the loss from taking the paper and plastic and tin and glass, so now they don't pay for anything.But you do get a break on your garbage bill.

If recycling were worth the trouble recycling companies would pay you.

The question is not whether it is financially worth the trouble to an individual suburban resident. The question is whether it is socially worth the trouble to reduce the use of raw materials and the construction of new landfills.

I get confused as to what gets recycled, simple as that. Rules are different depending on where you live. Where I live paper juice boxes go with cans, not with paper, and not all glass bottles are recycled. It's just too much and it makes me care less.

One research hazard: a fair number of the subjects took the paper with them, presumably to use for themselves. Those results were excluded from the analysis

Isn't this the ultimate form of recycling?

Reduce →Reuse→Recycle as remembered from elementary school.

I will also admit I recycle nearly everything at work. Everything goes into a nifty blue bin at my desk and a local food bank picks it up, sorts it, and sells it for funds to feed people.

However at home I don't recycle. As far as I can tell there are no bins for it at my apartment complex, and I dont know where in town I would take it if I was to do it my self.

I guess what I'm getting at is that for me ease of recycling may be a bigger factor than usability when it comes to consistent recycling.

Edit: Seems this was covered dozen times while I wad slowly typing.

That and incentives. In my town all recyclables are free to dispose of and bulky waste "trash" costs money, so anyone who is logical would want to recycle as much as they can. Compared to neighboring towns where dumping your garbage is free (in that it is paid for with tax dollars) no one has any incentive to reduce their garbage because they aren't directly saving any money. It's fools logic because they don't see that in the long run they are paying for this trash escalation in their own tax dollars but I think these "free" systems were put in place to combat the old timers who used to bury their trash in their backyards and in the woods.

What if I'm at the coffee house, and I have a paper cup, which has the recyclable symbol on it, but is now coated in chocolate syrup? Am I supposed to take it into the bathroom and rinse it out first, then recycle it?

I've also had the recycle bin left behind several times by trying to recycle the wrong thing. There's a confusing system of codes. Hey, I'm no dummy, and my time isn't free. The answer here is pretty obvious: don't recycle.

(The real answer: improve automated sorting and be *extremely lenient* about mistakes. The system of codes has to go.)

The "useful" theory (or at least Ars' summary of it) doesn't seem like a good explanation for the reduced recycling of 1/2 size soda cans. I wonder if the study's authors compared their theory against an alternate hypothesis something along the lines of:

People don't usually employ general reasoning when they recycle, they follow pre-established patterns. Any object that they haven't previously recycled will not be recycled unless the participants are slapped upside the head and told, "Listen, dumbass, LOOK at thing your hand. Turn on your brain. Can you recycle it?"

That would be a fun study.

Even better, your reasoning makes more sense from a pattern recognition / template response viewpoint. The response to the object match event is itself the pattern. Clearly, the dented and half sized cans were not recognized as the same or even similar objects as the standard, perfect can. People go on autopilot as much as they possibly can, and the differences end up on a default route to the refuse can until a new route is programmed.

What if I'm at the coffee house, and I have a paper cup, which has the recyclable symbol on it, but is now coated in chocolate syrup? Am I supposed to take it into the bathroom and rinse it out first, then recycle it?

I've also had the recycle bin left behind several times by trying to recycle the wrong thing. There's a confusing system of codes. Hey, I'm no dummy, and my time isn't free. The answer here is pretty obvious: don't recycle.

(The real answer: improve automated sorting and be *extremely lenient* about mistakes. The system of codes has to go.)

Rinsing items for recycling is completely illogical. You can't beat peoples heads in about watering on the correct day, low flow showers, and dysfunctional toilets but expect them to waste water on a nickel deposit bottle (in the states with deposit programs). Why clean something that is going to be sterilized by melting down anyway? Further, the amount of water a normal home wash will use is orders of magnitude more than a commercial shred and wash system, that has a recovery / filtration system. Sorting and label removal makes equally little sense. Make the manufacturers stop using dissimilar plastics or paper + glue for labels. Make sorting a productive outing for the prison population.

Lastly, municipalities that charge rental fees for recycling bins should have all of their civic leaders thrown in prison (to help with sorting). That's the most crooked crock of sh** I have ever witnessed. Just make the bins available to those who opt-in to use them if your town wants to save on not giving them to everyone.

If recycling were worth the trouble recycling companies would pay you.

They used to pay for aluminum. Then recycling became mandatory and it turns out the profit from the aluminum doesn't offset the loss from taking the paper and plastic and tin and glass, so now they don't pay for anything.But you do get a break on your garbage bill.

Actually, there are still places that will pay for aluminum cans. They usually are metal warehouses of various sorts.

A neighbor of mine collects the neighborhood's aluminum cans (you can just drop a bag of them on his patio) and he will crush them and take them to the center himself. (And he gets a small amount of extra cash this way. With the whole neighborhood giving him their unwanted cans, he spends a couple hours a week crushing them all and then gets probably 60 $ a week) (Not bad, considering the yearly take on that)

That study would have been worth something if they had tested bigger pieces of paper as well. So it's worthless. We humans just have a pretty good idea of what happens in recycling centres. All the small stuff gets put together into the incinerator. Might not be true of paper you put in the paper only box but definitely for standard mixed recycling trash cans. A friend worked at a recycling plant.

I agree with the comment about the smallest pieces of paper being a nuisance. It was engrained in me a long time ago that if I put something too small in the bin, it would end up in my yard or blowing down the street come recycling day.

I've been fairly good about recycling up to recently. About 20 years ago I was the recycling coordinator for the solid waste governmental authority in my county in CA. In that location, garbage collection was paid for either by number of cans per week, or by purchasing a labeled bag from the garbage company. We set up community bins for recycling. There was incentive to recycle because it could directly save you money. Today, I've just about had it with the local recycling. We have 3 different bins to sort into - paper, glass, everything else. They're not very big so we have to spend time flattening boxes, rinsing and crushing plastic bottles, sorting, etc. for no discernible benefit. Garbage is collected twice a week and the price is the same whether I have 1 bag or 6 cans full. And when I see my sorting effort wasted as the recycling truck comes by (just once per 2 weeks) and dumps everything into the same bin, it crosses from useless to actively discouraging. Why am I doing this? To save the planet? We often waste more energy in the recycling process than we save. And I'm using up water and time cleaning up stuff just to throw it into, from my perspective, the same black hole where the garbage goes. To hell with that. I get no discount of any kind, or even acknowledgement that I've done anything useful at all. I recycle aluminum cans because at least I can take a can full of those somewhere myself and get 20 bucks for my trouble.

I try to recycle everything possible. It used to be much harder when my town did it's own pickups, because they had so many damn rules. You needed like 6 bins to do it right, things had to be tied up, broken down, sorted, seperated. They had all these exclusions (this cardboard yes, 12 pack soda cardboard no). It made it really difficult to the point where if you weren't positive it was supposed to go in bin 4, you were better off putting it in the garbage.

Now they have outsourced recycle collection, like lots of towns are doing, and the new company wants everything together. No sorting or having to tie up newspapers. Just put it all in 1 bin, at the curb. They have smart soft facilities now.

I think an important thing to make it even easier is that companies need to display the recycle codes on their packaging better. Too much stuff I have to scour the packaing to find the recycle symbol. Or all it will say is "made with 100% recycled paper". Great, but does that mean I can recycle it again? or no? I don't know because thats all the package says about recycling, so I assume it can' t be.

We have the option of recycle here so its not a mandated thing, ya have to pay $20.00 month extra for the separate blue (or pink if you got the special one which has a fight breast cancer slogan and symbol on it) roll around recycled receptacles so you end up with the regular green roll around garbage receptacle the city supplies for free and the recycled both on the curb to be picked up. The city pays another company to pick up the recycled separate from the regular contractor who picks up the city supplied receptacle for regular garbage. The resident pays an extra $240.00 a year just to have the recycled receptacle (if they selected to have one). When the recycle thing was introduced it was poised as "the recycle receptacle will be supplied at no cost" and no mention was made of the monthly charge but two months after it started and the water & sewer bill arrived (garbage pick up is lumped in with the charges on our water & sewer bills) people noticed a $20.00 increase in their bills and upon exploring the bill they saw in fine print that the $20.00 increase was due to having the recycled receptacle. Once that happened, most people stopped recycling and you started to see a lot fewer of those recycle receptacles on the curb because they were returned.